Put emergency access

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Update' is not contradictory. Beyond that, the description does not say what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, how wait-time/type interact, or what side effects occur, so it adds little behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than a deliberately structured explanation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain required inputs, supported fields, or the effect of the update, leaving important gaps for an agent to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for four parameters, including opaque names like 'form', 'params', and 'json_body'. The description hints that wait-time and type are updatable fields but does not map them to any parameter or explain 'emer_id', so it only marginally compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update wait-time/type of an emergency-access grant.' That is clearer than a tautology and tells the agent exactly what kind of mutation is performed. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby emergency-access siblings such as view, approve, confirm, initiate, reject, or delete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to choose this update tool versus the many related emergency-access tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.